Open thread

Read the rest of this post...

Housing has permeated completely

A while ago I wrote about how you can tell a political issue has really infused the public consciousness when it shows up in decidedly non-political contexts (the post, which I can't find now, was about a sidelong smack against Iraq policy in a sports column). Not that there was really any question that the current mortgage debacle was a mainstream issue, but continuing the theme, just to demonstrate its infiltration into the narrative, I give you:

The LOLcat perspective on ARMs.

Republican governance: Do not want! Read the rest of this post...

The Democrats really do deserve what they get

What's wrong with this picture?



Gee, could it be that:

1. Bush still hasn't caught Osama six years after the 9/11 attacks?

2. Bush let Osama go at Tora Bora?

U.S. Concludes Bin Laden Escaped at Tora Bora Fight
Failure to Send Troops in Pursuit Termed Major Error

By Barton Gellman and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 17, 2002; Page A01

The Bush administration has concluded that Osama bin Laden was present during the battle for Tora Bora late last year and that failure to commit U.S. ground troops to hunt him was its gravest error in the war against al Qaeda, according to civilian and military officials with first-hand knowledge.

3. In 2002, months after the September 11 attacks, Bush removed our troops who were searching for Osama in Afghanistan in order to send them to Iraq, where Bush "chose" to fight a war unrelated to the war on terror or September 11?

Shifts from bin Laden hunt evoke questions
By Dave Moniz and Steven Komarow, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — In 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures.

4. In 2005, Bush dismantled the CIA office in charge of hunting for Osama?

C.I.A. Closes Unit Focused on Capture of bin Laden
By MARK MAZZETTI, New York Times
July 4, 2006

WASHINGTON, July 3 — The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday.

5. Bush himself said that he doesn't think much about Osama?

6. Bush said it doesn't really matter if we catch Osama?

Yes, the correct answer is "all of the above."

So how is it that the Republicans are still effectively using Osama - the guy who they let go - as a cudgel against the Democrats?

Answer: Because the Democrats suck.

Okay, a more serious, adult answer. The problem is that, for some reason none of us can quite figure out, the Democrats refuse to use Osama's "footloose and fancy free" status as an issue. So the Republicans one up them by actually having the nerve to appropriate the issue for themselves when they know that they're the ones who lost him in the first place. Now that's chutzpah. In a normal universe, the Republicans should be terrified of mentioning Osama, lest the Democrats launch a massive PR response requiring the media and all of Washington to spend the next week talking about just why Bush has still failed to catch Osama. But we don't live in a normal universe. We live in one where Democrats don't hit softballs that come their way.

I keep harping on it, but take the issue of privacy. Every week - every freaking week - there is a story in the media about another massive privacy violation in some company or some government agency. Do you hear boo from the Democrats on this issue? No. Now, why might the Democrats want to take advantage of there being a story about privacy every week in the news?

Um, is privacy, just maybe, an issue that appears on its face to be bipartisan - I mean, who isn't for privacy - but at the same time, is an issue, that at its core, goes to so many fundamental Democratic issues like choice, civil rights (especially gay rights), and Bush's overreach in the war on terror? Had the Dems been harping on privacy every week for the past two years, when the Republicans bring up yet another kooky idea like letting Verizon and AT&T; off the hook for aiding and abetting the feds in illegally spying on all of us, the public would have already understand that our diminishing privacy was a serious issue and just maybe the public would be on our side if we had the nerve to stand up to Bush on this issue.

The Democrats have no game plan. They don't know how to sell meta issues. They play chess one piece at a time, one move at a time, without having any concept that there's a larger game going on, and that the move they make right now will impact the move they make ten moves from now. Basically, the Democrats are politically high as a kite. Their long term memory is non-existent and their short-term memory only permits them about 6 seconds of cache, as we say in geek-land, before they forget everything and ask "dude, what was the question again?" for the tenth time.

We have a very serious problem in our party. We have too many leaders in Congress, too many members of Congress, too many consultants, too many advocacy groups, and just too many people with power who do not understand the basics of playing hardball. The basics of public relations. The basics of running REAL issue campaigns. The basics of how to give the other guy a black eye and not stop pounding until he cries uncle, and even then you hit him again.

Far too many people running our party and our movement have no idea how to play the game. And if we don't figure out how to make them fear for their political lives, or finally, if we have to, run them out of town, nothing is ever going to change. Read the rest of this post...

In Pakistan, Attack on Bhutto leaves scores dead

Benazir Bhutto's return to Pakistan today was marred by a bomb attack. She's okay, but the death toll is mounting:

A suspected suicide bomber killed more than 45 people and wounded 100 in an attack targeting a vehicle carrying former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto through Karachi on her return from eight years in exile.

Bhutto was safe and at her home after leaving the truck that had been transporting her through streets crowded with hundreds of thousands of people, officials said.

"Ms. Bhutto is safe and she has been taken to her residence," said Azhar Farooqui, a senior police officer in Karachi.

Rescuers scrambled to drag bodies from the twisted wreckage of blazing vehicles as flames lit up the night sky after two apparent explosions in Pakistan's most violent city.

"The blasts hit two police vehicles which were escorting the truck carrying Ms. Bhutto. The target was the truck," Farooqui told Reuters.

Read the rest of this post...

Dodd temporarily stops "telecom immunity/domestic spying" bill

Senator Dodd (D-CT) just threw a wrench in Democratic plans to pass George Bush's "it's okay if AT&T; and Verizon spied on you" bill (I'd written about some of the Dems caving to Bush on this earlier today). Dodd just put a hold on the bill, which means they'll need 60 votes (out of 100 senators) in order to proceed to the bill, and even then, it will take them 30 hours to do so. And if Dodd wants to really be a mensch, he can object to the final vote on the bill, the motion to go conference, and then on the conference report as well - coming to a grand total of, at least I'm told, 120 hours of debate that will be needed to finish this bill. A real pain in the butt.

It doesn't mean the bill is dead. But it does mean that it's a lot harder to proceed, and it means that Senators, including Democratic Senators, will now have to go on the record as to whether they think it's okay to cave to George Bush and give AT&T; and Verizon immunity for helping the feds illegally spy on their own customers. There's going to be a whole lot of pain if they have to keep voting on this, and there should be. The Democrats need to be taught a lesson that there's a price to pay for their own wimpiness.

But someone else who isn't wimpy, Senator Judiciary chair Patrick Leahy (D-VT). Leahy today said that he is not pleased at all about the little deal that Intelligence Committee chair Rockefeller brokered with Bush on this legislation. But not to be outdone, Diane "I've never seen a Democratic proposal I didn't want to sell out to the Republicans" Feinstein says she's prepared to stab the Dems in the back and support Bush on this. Gee, what a surprise, Di-Fi showing no backbone and siding with the Republicans. And she wonders why so many people on the left are constantly beating her up. Read the rest of this post...

House Republicans uphold Bush's veto of SCHIP, vote to deny health coverage to millions of American kids

Final vote was 273 - 156 - i.e., 13 votes short of overriding Bush's veto. The Republicans stuck with Bush.

Read the rest of this post...

House committee passes ENDA, 27-21

This is a historic vote (this is the GLB ENDA, the one we actually have the votes for, the one we've been working on for 30 years). All Republican amendments were defeated. Four Dems sided with Pat Robertson and the men at the Concerned Women for America and voted no (including Kucinich, Holt, Clark and Sanchez - ostensibly because they feel we should hold 25 million gays and lesbians hostage until America is ready to pass civil rights laws for somewhere between tens of thousands and a few hundred thousand transgender people), and three Rs voted yes (Castle, Biggert and Platts). I have written down that Kuhl (a Republican) voted yes, but need to double check that.

PS I'm just wondering why IGLHRC hates transgender people? I don't see gender identity mentioned anywhere in IGLHRC's action alert - it's all sexual orientation. Or is it okay to exclude transgender people when fighting for gay rights abroad but not at home? I assume the NGLTF and its allies will be coming down as hard on IGLHRC as they have on HRC. And let's hope no states or cities are working on any bill that deals with sexual orientation and not gender identity, because if you are, you're hateful rich white misogynistic bigots who must be destroyed. If anyone knows of any local initiatives that fit this bill, do let me know. Read the rest of this post...

Senate Dems cave even more to Bush, will give Verizon and AT&T; immunity for helping the feds spy on you illegally

God love the Democrats in Congress. And they wonder why so much of the party, and the public at large, hates them. As one of our readers said in an email to me a good two years ago, what makes you think the Democrats aren't going to continue being spineless once they're in the majority? And she was right. The Democratic leader of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Rockefeller (D-WV), reached a deal with George "24% in the polls" Bush that gives Verizon and AT&T; immunity for helping the government spy on you, their customers, illegally. They needed a court order, didn't have one, but gave all of your personal info about your phone calls to the feds simply because they asked. Now, Verizon and AT&T; claim that the feds told them it was totally legal to give up all of your personal phone call info without a court order, so Verizon and AT&T; had no choice. Funny, but if my lawyer went to Verizon and AT&T;, demanded the phone records of other customers, and told the companies "hey, this is totally legal, you don't need a court order," Verizon and AT&T; would have told my lawyer to go to hell. But not so much when the government comes calling and wants to spy on our own citizens. Could Verizon and AT&T; have simply gone to a court to make sure all of this was legal? Uh, yeah, you'd think. So, the Republicans, being the big business gravy train they always are, are now here to bail out Verizon and AT&T; for illegally spying on you.

And why do Verizon and AT&T; need this immunity bill anyway? We were told by Bush that all of this spying was legal. Now it seems there's growing concern, by Bush himself, that maybe he did in fact illegally spy on American citizens. Well, in that case, yes, the appropriate congressional response isn't outrage and a massive investigation of just what rights were violated by illegally spying on innocent American citizens. No, according to Mr. Rockefeller, the appropriate response is to do what Democrats far too often do when confronted by threats from people who are at 24% in the polls: They cave.

Senator Rockefeller is the embodiment of why this congress is so hated by so many, and why Democrats have such a credibility problem on national security and other "tough guy" issues. Someone explained to me, right before the 2004 election, why they just couldn't vote for John Kerry: "How is he going to defend my kids when he won't even defend himself?"

If Rockefeller can't bring it upon himself to run the Intelligence Committee any differently than his GOP-lapdog predecessor, then he shouldn't be permitted to run the committee any longer. Republicans wouldn't stand for this kind of insubordination, this kind of spineless pandering to the opposition. Why do we? And when our party leadership lets it continue, without exacting a price, why are we surprised that it happens again and again and again? Read the rest of this post...

US House committee to vote on ENDA this morning-ish

It's Barney's GLB version. The Washington Post has an update on the story. Tammy Baldwin will offer the trans amendment on the House floor. As the Post notes, if that amendment goes down by a lopsided vote, it could set the transgender movement back years. Basically, you don't usually want to push for votes in Congress unless you know you have the votes. Yes, sometimes symbolic failures are necessary, but usually you don't want to get members of Congress on the record voting against you, lest next year they'll need to flip-flop in order to vote FOR you. And if the vote is quite lopsided against you, it can convince congressional leaders to put off your agenda for a few years until it's ripe. It also sends a message to members of congress in the middle, the wavering ones, that if they vote with you they won't have much cover, so many of them may turn against on this vote and in future votes on related issues.

Bottom line: The conventional wisdom on the Hill is that you don't seek votes unless you know, or think, you can win. The pro-trans-ENDA-inclusion-now faction believes Tammy's amendment may either pass, or at the very least won't lose by much. Either they're right, and America and Congress don't have very far to go on trans rights, or they're wrong, and they may very likely set their movement (and possibly ours, to the extent members of Congress, the media, and the public see our two movements as one) back by years if not longer. We'll find out next week, when ENDA is expected to be debated and voted on in the House. Read the rest of this post...

Bush: Yeah, I'm relevant. I'll veto bills for kids and threaten WWIII

Maybe he's relevant, but Bush sounds more and more delusional:

Bush's assault on Democratic leaders during the 47-minute session reflected a broader attempt by the White House to go on the offensive at a time when polls show that the public has soured on Congress just as it has on the president. Stuck with the lowest approval ratings of his presidency with just 15 months left in office, Bush presented himself as still in command of the Washington agenda and rejected the suggestion that he has grown "increasingly irrelevant," as a reporter put it in a question.

"Quite the contrary," he said. "I've never felt more engaged and more capable of helping people recognize . . . that there's a lot of unfinished business." Defending his rejection of a popular children's health program expansion, Bush said his veto power gives him leverage. "That's one way to ensure that I am relevant," he said. "That's one way to ensure that I am in the process. And I intend to use the veto."

So keeping sick kids sick is how George Bush stays "relevant." I watched Bush's press conference yesterday. He was smirking and swaggering. Such a tough guy when it comes to beating up on kids -- and threatening war. The guy is dangerous. Read the rest of this post...

Thursday Morning Open Thread

Has Bush started World War III yet? Read the rest of this post...

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck

...and looks like a duck, it's a duck. The truth always hurts for this administration.

The U.S. government on Wednesday rejected a U.N. report that said the use of private security guards like those involved in the shooting deaths of Iraqi civilians amounted to a new form of mercenary activity.

The report by a five-member panel of independent U.N. human rights experts said the contractors were performing military duties even though they were hired to be security guards. The killing of 17 civilians in Baghdad last month by Blackwater USA guards underscores the risks of using such contractors, said panel chairman, Jose Luis Gomez del Prado of Spain.

Read the rest of this post...

Sarkozy gets his first real test at home

A nationwide strike in France against proposed changes to state transportation workers should give Sarkozy his first real taste of conflict with the powerful unions. In the past this was generally the point where the president (Chirac) would fold up and forget about change but I suspect 2007 is different from 1995. Ten years ago, most working families in France probably felt relatively secure with their jobs and support for such nationwide strikes was very high. Today, there is so much angst among working families about their job status so it remains to be seen how much support the unions will this time.

The heart of this strike is over the unions accepting changes to their pension plan and bringing them in line with the majority of French workers. In its current form, the union workers receive retirement after 37.5 years as opposed to 40 for others. What the unions may be discounting, besides the shorter working life, is that a painfully high number of workers outside of the unions are sacked in their 50s, never being able to reach 40 years of contributions. The unions are seeking to protect their hard fought victories but it remains to be seen how sympathetic the rest of the country will be in light of their own struggles. Sarkozy has a very supportive media on his side (think the US media after 9/11) though this is not a country that likes change. There's more to come in this battle. Read the rest of this post...

Bush administration suddenly begging for regulations in mortgage industry

Where the heck was this spirit a few years ago when it was needed? All of the hysteria that we will be hearing about from Paulson and probably soon enough Bush is purely for show because they know the economy is in serious trouble thanks to their incompetence of ignoring warning signs. (Let's not forget Mr. Bubble either, who ignored the issues related to regulating the mortgage industry.) There is nothing that is going to stop the hemorrhaging at this point and intervening now will only add to the cost for everyone including people who weren't greedy on Wall Street and Main Street.

To ask taxpayers who did the right thing, who are in the overwhelming majority, to pay because of the greed of others is too much. Let Wall Street sort out the trouble they created and keep taxpayers out of it. I'm all for them finding a solution that will minimize the negative impact on the financial markets and Wall Street has deep enough pockets to handle this considering how much they made selling rubbish the last few years.

In the administration’s most detailed reaction to the steepest housing slump in 16 years, Paulson said that government and the financial industry should provide immediate help for homeowners trying to refinance current mortgages before they reset at much higher rates.

He also called for an overhaul of laws and regulations governing mortgage lending to halt abusive practices that contributed to the current crisis.

It is only common sense that the administration implements a program of regulations and this should be welcomed. It remains to be seen if the GOP will maintain their usual talking points despite the calls for regulations and bailouts though talking out of both sides never stopped them before. However, it's much too late to have any meaningful impact and this proves yet again that industry is completely incapable of self regulation. This has been unfolding for a long time and will remain a problem for a while to come regardless of how much money the GOP throws at it.

Call me a skeptic but I smell a Wall Street bailout much more than a homeowner bailout which is where all of this is probably going. Regardless of what Paulson is now saying, he is investing much too much time in this to think otherwise and the administration has to be sensitive to yet another massive failure during their watch. Nice to see that the administration springs to life so fast when it's Wall Street who is in trouble as opposed to anyone else. Typical. Read the rest of this post...